Thursday, 28 July 2011

These humans they really can be funny. I don't mean that disrespectfully you understand. Some of my best friends are human.

A group of atheists in America , the American Atheists, have filed a lawsuit against, amongst others, the City of New York objecting to the installation in the 9/11 Memorial and Museum of the symbolic cross from the site of Ground Zero. The cross is made from a couple of girders found in the rubble of the twin tower collapse. It was erected on the Ground Zero site in 2006 and was moved to its new permanent home on Saturday 23 July 2011.

What has actually happened is that the real God, that is the God of Numerology and other related profundities (may all his camels have baby camels), has tried to give us a clue in the very date humans decided to have the World Trade Center disaster. The date, in English, 11 September 2001, is represented by the funny Americans as 9/11. The reason for this is that the 9 represents the Islamic crescent. It is curved like the crescent but notice the profound perversion as it is curled in on itself at the top. The 11 represents the Christian cross. It is broken into its constituent parts of two planks. The slash between the two numerical symbols represents destruction, hence the name of the symbol 'slash'. It's what you do to break, deface, or disfigure something. So from numerological meaning to linguistic representation it reads "Perverse Islam destroys broken Christianity". I thought it was so obvious at the time that I didn't realise how many humans had not got it.

There is more profundity in the event. For example, the fact that the buildings were called the World Trade Center was not a coincidence. The powers that exist (may all their fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them), in their infinite wisdom, caused humans to call them that because the acronym WTC actually represents the vast array of religious beliefs by randomly picking three (the holy number) namely Wiccan, Taoism and Catholicism. It is so obvious.

Memes hey? Some people dismiss memes as ethereal or not real. Simply ideas and not connected to the real physical world. But thoughts are, like speed and gravity, exactly the 'real world'. You can't pick up a piece of speed and cut it in half. Well you can actually but let's not go there; That's just different meanings of words. And anyway you might just cut it with one bit slightly bigger than the other depending upon who you are sharing it with. Oh heck, just thinking about speed and I've started writing faster. You'd better speed up your reading to keep up with me. Yo! Here I go. The thing about memes is that they are the emergent behaviour of the complex neurological networks which are our brains. It all happens with real molecules in the real world. The effects that we perceive are assimilated into conceptual analogies of the world as we know it. It is all a complex feedback model. But memes are real and they could not affect the real world if they were not real themselves. Speed kills people as we know. In different ways but it does. Speed is real, gravity is real and memes are real. Religions are memes. They are ways of interpreting the world and they are old and clunky. They are inaccurate and past their use by date. They might be a way for a small group of cowards to avoid facing their fears but with the scale of complex intercommunication in the world today they can no longer claim innocence of their erroneous nature and the damage they do.

I fully accept that folk can try out any interpretation of reality they choose. But what is not reasonable is for one group to utilise the collective resources for their own set of beliefs without due respect for other people's point of view. It just ain't fair. If they forcibly do it then it is called oppression and oppression is abuse. (If they are Muslims it's called terrorism.) America is not Christian. There are Christians in America but there are also Taoists, Wiccans and Catholics, as the WTC was meant to illustrate. This is partly what a 'secular' society is supposed to be about. Whether it is right or wrong the original American Constitution is specifically and intentionally secular.

It is one thing to inadvertently put a cross up at Ground Zero because you think it is a nice idea but it is another to forcibly persist when it is made clear how contradictory and offensive it is to other people. There are numerous (numerology again!) solutions to this issue but just arguing for the cross to remain there to play for time so that the reality is that it remains there is offensive action against others and is a crime that should be redressed with compensation. So for every day that it remains the City of New York should be fined a huge sum of money. Money being their true religion, if it 'cost' them, they would soon remove it.

I would also like to ask the people who favour ideas like Christianity how they think it makes sense to honour an omnipotent God who killed 2,752 humans? Just a question.

And I found this image (on the left) on the Mail Online web site (I'm not pinching it because it is fair use as part of our cultural heritage and I am only questioning its content and I'm giving the original huge picture credit and the Mail Online and providing a link to the original!). I wonder if anyone can explain the two tennis balls placed at the base of the cross (enlarged, without symbollock meaning, by me underneath the original photo). Are they some sort of mystical symbol representing Christ's testicles? I don't mean to be rude but I was just wondering if this is some sort of reference to the testosteronal nature of Christianity. Is it because God is male? Are they the God's bollocks?

Hey ho! What a funny bunch they really are. You can't help loving them though because they are so cute (not the bollocks - the humans).

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

As you get older sometimes it seems that God has worked everything out too well. Amy Winehouse tragically died on Saturday 23 July 2011. I first saw Amy Winehouse on the Jools Holland Hootenanny show in 2006 singing Monkey Man. It is one of those performances that exude talent and authenticity. There was something about her performance, her 'devil may care' attitude, her writhing gestures and her raw nakedness hinted at in her clothing but so evident in her soul that I knew this lady was something special. I've adored her ever since.

Amy Winehouse - Monkey Man

Jools Holland is a mega faceted musical talent and guru; He rated her as having 'one of the best voices of anybody of all time'. I don't know about that but she was one of the most talented artists I have ever encountered. She is up there with the likes of Syd Barrett and Vincent van Gough for pure raw honest personal humanity. Of course it was as likely as not that she would burn and die. She did and it is part of the raw tragedy of real life. Somehow, though, it makes life worth living. I for one am really glad I encountered just a small part of her genius. Of course I am sad to see her go and I think on it a lot. But maybe, when enough talent has died, I really won't care so much about leaving this place after all.

Here's a few other best performances available by Amy Winehouse on You Tube worth putting in your conceptual essence:

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Once upon a time there was a chief of a small tribe in a village way out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of Africa. The chief lived in a grand grass house and ruled benignly over his tribe. He had an old throne carved from local stone and it had been in the family for many years. One day a visiting chief brought him a gift of a brand new iron throne. There was great celebration and the next day the chief installed the new throne and put the old one in the loft. He was sitting quietly contemplating on his plush new throne when there was an almighty crash as the old throne fell through the roof and squashed the chief killing him dead on the spot.

As I have said before - what has the title got to do with the content?

As one delves the mysterious depths of officialdom one find the most remarkable monsters from the deep. On the surface the clear waters of the tropical lagoon gently reflect the sunlight and all seems well. But lurking just beneath the surface there are a myriad of dangers. To the unwary the scene seems harmonious and at one with the universe but predatory creatures patrol the waters seeking easy targets and nourishment for their own survival. The deeper you go the weirder and more alien the life forms become. The same seems true of the Children Services in Britain.

I have encountered many stories of intimidation, cruelty and child abduction by officialdom. Like many people I happily imagine that they are the exception. But my own experience is suggesting that although the serious incidents may be rare they are enabled because of the mode of action of the social services.

I recall many years ago working out why the two policemen had planted cannabis on me. It was a cruel and relatively insignificant event but why would they be so arbitrarily unkind? If you like drugs there is a way to be involved with a degree of impunity. Join the security forces. Join the police and join the drug squad. Then you get to meet all the pushers and you get some degree of power and control and a reasonable supply of illicit drugs for your own recreation. So when you are tasked to attend the Reading pop festival as an undercover cop you get paid to do what thousands pay for. You get to go to the pop festival. You also have the added benefit of a free supply of drugs from pushers who you effectively blackmail. Part of the deal is that you don't shop them. So how can you go back after the weekend and tell your chief inspector that you couldn't find any drug users at a major pop festival? You don't. You simply use some of your superfluous supply to plant on innocent victims and arrest them. Your superintendent is pleased with your haul and you get to go next year too.

I knew a psychopathic murderer once. He was a very nice bloke. Seriously folks, he was. But there was something amiss. Now the funny thing about humans is that they are multifaceted and diverse. This bloke, the psychopath (and I've known a few who don't kill), was afraid. He wouldn't admit it (like so many of us) and so he became 'brave'. One way, he divulged to me, was that 'out there' there are monsters and so what you do is become a monster. That way you are the monster and you no longer have to be afraid. Neat little trick. Philosophically a little suspect but neat all the same. I tried it once until I scared someone and felt sorry for them. I soon realised it wasn't for me.

Now if you are afraid of authority one thing you can do is to join an authoritarian organisation. If you feel, perhaps, that someone should have rescued you from your parents, you may feel all sympathetic for all those kids who have oppressive parents and you may want to rescue them. Wow! Become a social worker and work for the Children Services. How very benign you must look to yourself. But how could you possibly survive if you couldn't locate those children who need rescuing? You wouldn't keep your job for long if all the poor and degenerate families that you visited happened to be law abiding and reasonable parents. You wouldn't feel satisfied in yourself either because you might just have to face up to your own problems. So it is simple and it is called prejudice. Those lower class people are cruel to their children. It is so easy to find fault with people in general and it is probably even easier to find fault with parents. But as that little chap Jesus suggested, perhaps the one with no guilt should cast the first stone. Let's just forget about him for a moment or we wouldn't get any bloody stones thrown. And anyway how would we save the children then?

I have a take on unemployment that I sometimes explain. If there are 100 people and 80 jobs then 20 people will be unemployed. Those 20 people are not going to be the sharpest tools in the box. So when prats come along and try to assert that it is their fault because they are not sharp that they don't have a job they are simply, and conveniently, missing the point. Incidentally people like that should be given a lobotomy and put at the end of the job queue.

So having joined the Children Services for all the right reasons you find yourself conveniently supplied with a list of families to investigate by malicious and vindictive reports from nasty resentful people. There may even be some legitimate concern. But the point is that you get to visit a lot of people who have some faults. All you have to do is concentrate on the faults and one way or another you will expose some very distasteful traits. In some cases (not all because that would be just silly) you find justification for nicking the kids. It's that simple. Once you have nicked them though you do have to defend your position. It is not going to look good if you keep saying "Oops sorry" and handing the kids back. Thereby lies the collusive culture in the Children Services. And necessarily it spreads through the other services like the police and the judges. They cannot be seen to be wrong because just look at what happens to people who are wrong.

They are not only their own worst enemy but more importantly they are societies worst enemies.

I came across the case recently of a couple who had their 5 year old child taken from them. In the course of the fiasco of the arrest the mother also had a miscarriage. According to some that could be deemed murder. But the issue of the abducted child is where the focus remains and so the murder of the unborn just sinks into oblivion. The case was reported by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph on 18 Jul 2009 entitled 'Evil destruction' of a happy family. The way I came across this is interesting because I was on the BASW (British Association of Social Workers) web site looking into some Children Services workers who happen not to be on the 'regulated' membership list of this private limited company posing as a professional regulatory body. I was browsing around when I found an article entitled BASW condemns Sunday Telegraph's discrediting of child protection social workers. This little article was full of pompous indignation. But on reading it all I could glean was an arrogant condemnation of an irresponsible journalist who had dared to suggest there was anything wrong with the social services. There was no rational argument and no counter evidence, just supercilious, self-serving, high and mighty condemnation and an over bloated smug assertion of the good work of the social services. It sounded guilty to me. So I looked into it a bit more and came across the aforementioned article by Christopher Booker. But to my surprise, this was not the article to which the BASW referred. That article had been written several years ago. So I tried to find the referenced article. I thought a good way would be to look up a quote from the article on the internet. In the BASW article it states "BASW condemned Christopher Brooker’s article, in which he claimed that 'children are torn from their parents with no good reason'. A senior BASW official called the piece "irresponsible" and "simply untrue." (they have misspelled the journalists name). So I cut and pasted the phrase "children are torn from their parents with no good reason" and put it into a famous search engine. To my surprise out of the only five pages returned four were from the BASW web site and the last one was another web site reporting on the content of the BASW web site. The plot thickens. So I went to the Daily Telegraph and searched through Christopher Booker's latest articles. There I found one entitled "Child protection system tears two more families apart". I read the article. So the BASW have misquoted Booker. But I will leave that alone for the time being because it is possibly an insignificant misquote. Worth noting though that they misspelled the name of the child and misquoted her. But the article read perfectly well. The journalism seemed responsible and is severely questioning the authorities in a right and proper way. So what are BASW so afraid of? With no more ado I will simply point out that these are the tactics of Colonel Gaddafi's security forces. Work it out for yourself.

Advice for the Prime Minister: Austerity measure number 1: Dismantle one of the most expensive internal security bureaus you operate, namely the Children Services Directorate; Prosperity measure number 1: Fund parenting groups across the country at a fraction of the cost of the Children Services Directorate. Result = Wealthier country with healthier kids growing up in it! Simples - you prat.

Sunday, 24 July 2011

Having struggled for hours trying to get Page X of Y in my footer in Word 2007 I eventually appear to have succeeded. So for my use and for anyone else with this problem I am putting the solution on this blog.

Search terms to help me find this page when I want it:Page numbering in Word.Page X of YPage numbers in headers and footers.Page 1 of 2

First off I want to say how bloody annoying Micro$oft are getting. "VERY!" There - that's sorted.

I fully understand that issues like page numbering are difficult to implement (not that difficult actually) and that explaining the subtleties is deemed beyond the intelligence of most Word users (that may be true) but it is reasonable to explain the basics as well as the endless list of "If you want it orange go to this selection and select that drop down and click 'Orange Page Number' and click 'Ok'", "If you want a big page number go to footers and select esoteric option and select the 'Size' option and on the 'Size' option select the 'Big' tab and select 'Page Number'.", "If you are writing to your mother ..." etc. They seem to escalate the concept of thinking what you might want in particular and then creating that particular thing. Whatever happened to generic solutions. What happened to giving the 'user' control. Well it is actually because Micro$oft are co-dependent. They need you to be dependent on them. So they foster your dependency. In the long run it is destructive and I hate them for it.

This is not an in depth study of fields in Word but I did discover that you can type:
{ PAGE } of { NUMPAGES }

BUT...
You don't actually 'type' that. You have to create the curly parenthesis as a field by pressing Ctrl F9. Then you type 'PAGE' (without the single quotes) or 'NUMPAGE' inside the curly brackets.

Of course things are never simple with Word and I found that this does work in footers and headers but when I tried it in the document body it didn't seem to update automatically.

Saturday, 23 July 2011

Devastation in Norway on 22 July 2011. Death and destruction wrought by bomb blast in Oslo and shooting on the island of Utøya. At least 87 people killed and many more injured. It all appears to be a Rambo style attack by one 32 year old man called Anders Behring Breivik.

It seems he planted a bomb in a government building in the Norwegian capital Oslo. He then travelled south to the island of Utøya where there was a Labour Party youth camp taking place. He placed several bombs around the island and, dressed as a police officer, he began indiscriminately shooting people, killing at least 80 and injuring many more.

So what was Anders Behring Breivik's problem. That, I don't know, but his behaviour sounds like one of two things. Either he was effectively ostracised by his culture and felt the only way to get recognition was by some extreme act or he was entirely screwed up by his parents. It sounds to me like an understandable extreme attempt to break a double bind. I will bet that psychologists will speculate that he was a paranoid schizophrenic thereby adding to the general prejudice against this condition. But if they do I hope they pay equal homage to the fact that he was a conservative Christian conformist. And he greatly admired Winston Churchill. Let's have some more reasonable prejudice come out of this one please. And as for Obama's remarks about terrorism I just think the man is attempting to catch a lift on any passing bandwagon. I will be very surprised if this event turns out to have anything to do with the concept of terrorism being referred to by old matey Barack Hussein.

Norway tends to keep itself to itself and can afford to. It is one of the richest nations on earth per head of population and sits on the north west edge of the continent of Europe. Most famous perhaps for its fjords Norway also shows signs of being a forward looking and rather sensible country. When oil was discovered in the North Sea in the late 1960s Norway had a large stake in it. So, incidentally did Britain. Britain has squandered the wealth but Norway has been very careful with it. The two main things it did was to invest in the infrastructure of the country thereby laying the foundations for long term stability and security and it invested a large proportion of the money in a multitude of countries and industries around the globe. The reasoning behind this being that whichever way the world economics go Norway will always have some safe investments. The politics is a mixture of conservative with a small 'c' and socialism. They are a kind of soft 'Big Brother' state. Their taxes are relatively high and the average wage is relatively high. So overall the wealth of the population is more evenly spread than most places and the general standard of living is good. The Norwegians themselves are mostly a pleasant easy going bunch. Having spent much time in Norway there is an undercurrent of parochial authoritarianism. You wouldn't notice it at first glance but the Norwegians are proud of their way of life and do not happily tolerate dissent. Given that they are reasonably comfortable they can also afford to be quite nice. Even I'm nice when I'm well off.

But don't worry folks. With the onset of the apocalypse you can expect more and more of these bizarre and apparently indiscriminate events as the western world descends into hell.

Me? I'm just catching band wagons too. Maybe I should write to Mr Obama about my problems. He might be interested. He could send me one million quid and I'd be happy.

Friday, 22 July 2011

Much as I appreciate that David Cameron is busy I did decide that, as the Prime Minister, he really should know what is going on in the country. Even though sometimes you would be forgiven for thinking he didn't. He really can't be blamed for not knowing what is going on if no one is willing to tell him.

Incidentally Sam lets me, Dave, write in his blog sometimes. I'm Dave Hook as opposed to Dave Cameroon. I explain this because when you look at the letter to the Prime Minister you would be forgiven for wondering who wrote it since it says it is from Dave (me). Of course Dave is a pseudonym because we like to maintain privacy at this web site and really don't like all this phone hacking invasion of privacy stuff (like fuck) (SHIT! who said that?) because we like to get truly ensconced in the murky collusion of secrecy here. No - it's not like that - you don't understand. Hell, who does understand? ME actually! Since you ask!

So I wrote to the Prime Minister. I wrote to the Home Secretary, Theresa May, too. And to Graham Stuart MP and John Hemming MP and my local MP. You see I'm a bit bothered by the disgusting behaviour of the Children Services in my town. In fact given the amount of manipulative criticism that I have suffered in my relatively short life of less than 100 years I am fed up with prats and dick-heads making my life impossible. So the fact that even the Home Office doesn't seem to know whether it is the 'Children's Services' or the 'Children Services' gets right up my nose. The Children Services don't seem to know what they are called either. Can you believe that? Well unfortunately knowing the calibre of the people who work there it would be surprising if they did know the name of the organisation they worked for. Most of them know their own names though. It is, in fact, the Children Services. I conclude this because it is within the Children Services Directorate and because it is a similar organisation to the Adult Services but for a different category of human. No one has a problem with the Children Services Directorate and no one has a problem with Adult Services. They don't accidentally call it the Adult's Services. One reason for that is it starts of as Adult Services and if they try to say Adult's Services they get a problem with an impending lisp which they rapidly reject. So it remains the Adult Services. Children Services, however, seems to give them a problem. One issue is that 'Adult' is singular and 'Children' is plural. If it were the Adults Services would they get confused and refer to it as the Adults Services, the Adults' Services and the Adult's Services on different occasions. Probably!

Well I had to go out and on my return this is looking remarkably anal. But the point is that they literally don't even know what they are called. They have been seriously offensive to us and had I not stopped them who knows how far it might have gone. Having stopped them, however, it seems the 'seriousness' of their offence doesn't warrant concern. Well that might be their opinion but it is not mine. The way I see it is that they are abusive and most of their victims are unable to confront them or stand up to them so I am going to do it. They are quite funny in some ways because had they simply acted like normal human beings and apologised for their rudeness in the first place (well the umpteenth place actually but who's counting) I would have accepted it. But they have continued to add insult to injury with amazing resilience. Even to the point of 8 months down the line when the Ombudsman has been involved I sent them a complaint and requested a response in two working days, pointing out that it was their statutory obligation, they simply didn't respond. Oh golly what a wheeze. Well they might not thing it is such a jolly jape when they get a letter from the Prime Minister's Office asking them what's going on. Cos I don't expect David will deal with the letter himself. He has a lot of things to be dealing with at the moment notwithstanding the mischievous journalists.

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

I think I am suffering from PTSD. That's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Not that most people would need that spelling out nowadays. It is becoming a common phrase. They used to shoot cowards. It is only recently that the British Government pardoned 306 soldiers "shot at dawn" for desertion and cowardice during the First World War. All of these men were suffering from various conditions from Shell Shock to PTSD. There are various arguments for and against such a pardon but the arguments against are simply primitive and disgusting. Freudian projection is probably the most general explanation of this phenomenon. Strong brave people wouldn't shoot people who are afraid. In fact the irony is that the 'justification' for war is so often claimed to be the protection of the innocent and supporting high moral values. But weak people project the 'unacceptable' qualities onto others to protect their own egos. The frightening thing is that they are probably unconscious of this act. They genuinely believe that those whining scum are weak and pathetic cowards. Oh how easily the words flow from my mouth. I can be so condemning of weak, feeble, pathetic cowardly individuals. It's easy because I was brought up in a culture of 'blame' and authoritarian judgemental attitude. And actually I hate them with a vengeance. I might get over it when I resolve the PTSD but applying 'their' values to them is my only way of holding onto any sanity whilst I try to make sense, not only of the world out there, but the world inside me too.

Of course it is not them that have cause my PTSD directly. It is the culture that has allowed the crimes against me and my daughter to succeed. It is because we live in a festering cowardly blame culture that the malevolent vindictive cruelty of the ex could find traction and leverage. Anyone who has been falsely accused of something and the mud has stuck in some seriously detrimental way will understand. Anyone who has experienced prejudice will understand. What amazes me is how the academics and the philosophers and any freethinking people all understand to a significant degree what is going on but the politicians, the media, the police (now there's a fine collection of corrupt two-faced hackers), the judges, teachers, priests, social services - STOP! The list is too long - but the people 'in charge' so rarely seem to get it. The pretentious judgmental authoritarian control freaks just don't get it. They are so self-contradictory. They stand up for 'justice' and dish out injustice. They construct a killing machine to go to war to 'stop violence'. Teachers tell kids 'don't be clever!' Oh the irony of it all.

Gordon Turnbull is a Consultant Psychiatrist in Trauma at Capio Nightingale Hospitals, London. He has recently written a book called "Trauma: From Lockerbie to 7/7: How trauma affects our minds and how we fight back" which on all accounts is worth a read. I won't be reading it because I can't afford it. So go buy a copy read it and send me the second hand volume (You can contact me HERE and I'll give you my details). If you do I will read it and give it my most severe analysis. I would be interested to know if the man really understands what is going on. From an interview with him that I heard on Radio 4 I suspect he is at least half way there. His work with PTSD patients on all accounts has a good success rate. It seems that the prevailing view of mental illness is that it is incurable. It is not my view and it seems it is not Professor Turnbull's either.

PTSD in my view is the condition of an emotionally unresolved experience. When we experience stuff it gets into our neurological network and we find ways of incorporating it into our being. One part of that process is experienced by us as 'emotion'. The emotional experience is part of the 'healing' process. The end result, if all is well, is that we 'understand' the world out there. We make sense of our experience. It is all part of the learning process that enables us to successfully engage with 'reality' But sometimes, for one reason or another, the emotional processing is interrupted or doesn't resolve. PTSD seems to be a consequence of something so traumatic that it takes more emotional resolution than we are given time or circumstances to handle. But unlike some other ways of 'dealing' with trauma it is not suppressed to the point of perverting our comprehension of reality. So it sits in a sort of no-man's-land between repression and understanding. That is where the symptoms are visible. Not dealing with it will result in a malfunctioning human. And there are many of those littered about the place. Dealing with it will give a deeper understanding of life. It was Friedrich Nietzsche who said "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Unfortunately the quote is misused in a trite way too often but when calamity occurs it is often the case that either it kills you or you learn and become a little stronger. Bones that get broken become stronger. This is not a way to become strong though. Although going by some parental attitude you might think so.

That's it. That's the end of this post. Not the end of the post traumatic stress. If it seems a bit unresolved, incomplete, or aimless well that is the nature of PTSD! So I have got it - SEE!

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

As life starts out for many people they have hopes and dreams. So long as they can develop reasonably well they might maintain hope and so be able to wish for nice things. But when your life has been destroyed by relentless nastiness and there is finally no hope left what are you going to do? I suppose I do 'wish' for nice things but I am so angry with the destruction wrought by so many people that I am very distressed, angry and resentful. I guess that makes me a bitter and twisted individual. But without people like me how could all those sanctimonious pretentious selfish gits satisfy themselves that they are so wonderful. And there, perhaps, lies the answer. They require people like me to feel good about themselves. They create despair and destruction around them just to feel not so bad. They are negative entities in the universe. Like dark matter they seem invisible and make up the majority of everything. They selfishly get on with their lives kidding themselves with feigned innocence. They are the sort who go to church and whisper nice things to their all powerful joker called God. "Please God save all the starving children around the world. Please God save all the poor people in the war." But they leave church feeling that they have proved that they care and buy themselves an ice cream and go home to their nice house and keep the tax they pay invisible by pretending they are being responsible citizens. They even pervert that by imagining that they are hard done by having to pay the tax. That makes them feel a little better. "I suffer as well. I have to pay all that tax." But where does the tax go? A lot of it goes to the rich folk running the war for profit and manipulating the economics of the world to maintain poverty, starvation and disease. But they plead "What can I do about it?" They are sad pathetic individuals and are fodder for the oppressors.

I think I will start a really constructive project. I will set out on a last attempt to communicate something of worth. I will rip the negative constructs apart and leave them in shreds. I will invalidate the self contradictory philosophical edifices used by these morons and leave them naked and vulnerable. I will make them suffer indefinitely. I will tear down their temples and rebuild them in three days - Hang on - is this sounding a bit like Christianity? I've been infected. That is what God is all about. Which God? I hear you cry. Well I don't actually because I don't think many people will get what I am talking about. The point being that the God of Judaism was replaced by Christ. He tore down their metaphorical temples and brought 'humanity' and 'love' into reality instead of the fictionalising of it in the 'spiritual' world only to leave reality bereft of it. He made it clear that goodness and love were actually really here in the material world. But that was too much for folk to cope with so they stuffed it back into the spiritual world and constructed a church called Christianity where they could whisper nice things to their fantasy God again.

I was brought up as a Christian. I really tried to understand what they were going on about. I did understand a lot of it. But somehow the complex jigsaw just didn't connect in the middle. Thousands of tiny parts all linked together nicely but there was always something wrong. Eventually I began to understand what it was. They fictionalise goodness. They fictionalise love. They become the very thing they hate the most. Meaningless blobs in the universe that do nothing but harm. They are a cancer. They have destroyed the hope in life. They are so afraid that they might be meaningless that they have become death. Christianity, along with Islam and Judaism are little more than perverse panic by millions of pathetic lost bits of sentient life in the universe. Thank God they are going to end up as a jumble of decomposing biology and finally become simple molecules roaming free in the universe once more.

Just in case there is any doubt in the readers mind I do not like pretentious religious gits. They deserve the worst their God has to offer. And if I could do anything to help I would. But I have been successfully disarmed and imprisoned by their imposed poverty. I would advise them not to let me escape because my vengeance would be unstoppable. If I escape I will dedicate my life to destroying their culture of cruelty and greed.

Monday, 18 July 2011

John Yates has now resigned. What is that about? These people don't resign because there is gossip and distraction. They resign in an attempt to escape justice. So how deeply was he involved in the illegal conspiratorial machinations of the subculture of control freaks including politicians, journalists and the police. How deep and how dark are these murky waters? What sort of mafia style control is going on. Soon people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that these people have a public image and a private reality. They construct their public image. You do have to be naive to imagine that the police are as they appear. They are not mastermind criminals, they start off seeing the profession as having advantages and they possibly even believe in the good intentions. But remember the mafia are very Roman Catholic. They think they believe in a benign God. They just think someone has got to enforce control to maintain the stability. They do this by judging people and controlling all those they believe are lesser humans than them. The police do this. It has been clearly illustrated with numerous investigations. Politicians are about the same except they are gullible twits. And the media are the people who really hold the puppet strings. In fact a good analogy is that the puppets are the politicians, the police are the strings and the media are the puppet masters.

And just to keep the story alive Sean Hoare has been found dead at his home in Watford. Sean Hoare worked for the News of the World and claimed Andy Coulson was not only aware that phone hacking was going on but he was actively promoting it. Sean Hoare left the News of the World under a bit of a cloud because of his drinking and drug habits. I suspect he just overdid it in celebration at the escalating phone hacking scandal. But it makes for more gossip and speculation.

How much guff spewing forth from politicians, police, & media are the public going to swallow before they choke to death?

Apparently recent surveys indicate 14% of the folk think politicians tell the truth, 19% think journalists tell the truth and 63% believe the police tell the truth. How gullible is the general public?

I've just been listening to John Humphrys interviewing Boris Johnson over the resignation of the Chief of Police Paul Stephenson over the phone hacking scandal. I've never heard Boris Johnson sounding so unsure of himself. He is normally a blustering, rather naive, straight forward guy. Well he likes to wear that disguise. But with the internet around, and so much information not only recorded but readily available to check and correlate, the old school tactic of convenient memory loss is losing its effectiveness. He was struggling to defend the police chief and indeed himself. The trouble is that these people have been used to getting away with saying whatever seems plausible at the time to deflect criticism or fudge the issue. But more and more they are being held to account for their previous contradictory statements.

My irony is that I don't really care much about phone hacking. I don't think it is half as bad as the 'shock horror' everyone seems so pleased to express. The irony for me is that the people who are getting caught up in this affair are the ones who need to defend their secret communications because they are up to no good. I don't get secrecy. The only secrets I have found acceptable are things like surprise parties. The trouble with secrecy is it is all part of the mechanism of control. When you do the philosophical dissection of it all you soon realise that the only reason for keeping secrets is to stop others using information illegitimately but the very act of trying to hide the information becomes a kind of collusion with the illegitimate pursuits. After all, we are all human and we do what humans do. What exactly are we pretending to be, such that the 'truth' can be used against us.

This murky business of the phone hacking scandal is getting all the corrupt folk rushing around in a panic. It is spreading like wild fire through the police, the media and politics. A contractual arrangement between Neil Wallis and the metropolitan police existed where he was paid £1,000 per day for 'consultation'. Andy Coulson, who was arrested over the phone hacking affair, was employed by David Cameron. John Yates, the current assistant commissioner of the metropolitan police, is about to be investigated. Rebekah Brooks has been arrested too. Of course she was metaphorically in bed with David Cameron but can you be charged with metaphorical adultery? And the question David might ask is does she swallow? She appears to expect everyone else to. The whole affair is a complete mess. A bunch of compulsive liars. But will the culture of arrogance and assumed impunity, control and manipulation, greed and corruption, actually get addressed and sorted? With the impending financial collapse of the Western World I doubt it. At the end of the day, as the Joker so aptly put it in The Dark Knight "When the chips are down, these… these civilized people, they’ll eat each other."

Sunday, 17 July 2011

We all have our own take on this life and what reality is all about. We have a fair idea what the folk around us think too. None of us are the same but in the main we have similar ideas. But the further afield you go both in space and time the wider the gap becomes in our conceptualisation of reality. The indigenous tribes of America, that we like to call Indians, had their take on things and the Aborigines in Australia had their view. Then there are the cultural divides like the ancient Egyptians and the Romans. And there are those most dreadful of all; the religions.

Throughout human history and all around the world there are some constants with human beings and they are not too dissimilar to animals as well. Fundamental harmony with the environment. Balance, equilibrium, sustainability and love. Love is a funny thing. We seem to have screwed it up right royally in our culture. We have two fundamental problems with love. We mix it up with dependency and then get married and fuck up our children. And we try so hard to get the approval of our elders and aspire to appear loving and good. When the focus of attention is on not being accused of being bad then the focus of attention is on yourself and not others. Then we become the very thing we are trying so hard to avoid. We become evil.

Take a good look around at all the different aspects of your reality. The vicious unforgiving perversion of the economic system, the ruthless irresponsible raping of planet Earth in the name of industrial progress, the wars and destruction, the aspirations of science, art and literature, and one can go on forever finding different aspects to look at. But take a look at the whole and ask yourself if it looks sustainable and good.

I've got a lot of studious history behind me. I have studied Art and Computing. I'm an armchair philosopher and I hate economics. The thing that is consistent in my history is I like jigsaw puzzle pieces to fit together. I get a little sidetracked by detail. When I get suspicious that something doesn't intuitively seem quite right I rarely agree to consign it to my "I believe" part of my brain. It remains a thing that still needs confirming before the edifice of which it is a part can be believed. It's a tough job and it seems to confuse many people. But when you examine religion in detail it is self evidently a load of bollocks. When you start examining any aspect of our financial system in detail it becomes clear it is illogical and fallacious. When you look at industrial progress and the advancement of technology you soon realise it is unsustainable. It is not that one can't be spiritual or that a form of financial exchange can't work or invention and creativity are not beneficial but something is wrong with the actual manifestation of these things in the real world.

The problem is a fundamental misconception of reality. Humans create a kind of model in their minds of what they think the world out there is like. Starting from that very complex system of molecules called a foetus we absorb experience and the effects flow around inside the system setting up responses. It is all about learning and surviving. What has happened with humans as opposed to other animals is they have moved one big step forward in their complexity. I guess you can put it down to things like language because the intercommunication between these systems, these individuals, has extended to the larger collection of humans. The problem is whether the big blob (a large collection of humans) comprehends reality correctly. The evidence is at least that it is having a hard time of it. The internet is perhaps a fundamental requirement in making the interconnections faster, more connected and therefore enabling a more correct model of reality to be formed inside the system.

Behind it all is a thing called love. What is love? Well old Joe Ratzinger reckons it is truth. And so do I. For all the use of the word love very few people could actually definitively grasp what it is. We talk about it and we know what we mean at the time but the word love does not so much define something as refer to something quite intangible and unknowable. Love is always harmonious. Love is always right. Love is empathetic and nurturing. Love is friendly and supportive. Love is positive and beneficial. Love is what our heart recognises as right. And as so many people and philosophies have asserted, love is the only way.

So what is love? Well whatever it is one thing is for sure; Those things which stand against it and oppose it are negative and detrimental. So take a look around at your world again and ask yourself if the petroleum industry is pro or anti life. Does the economic system have anything to do with love? Do the authoritarian attitudes of religious dogma have any harmony with love. The glaring fact is that we, collectively and individually, keep allowing a whole load of crap to go on because we are afraid and can't see a viable alternative. It is neither possible nor necessary for you or me to stop the crap. What is necessary though is that we don't give it credence. Don't keep supporting one politician because you are more afraid of the other one. Don't keep supporting the police because you are afraid of criminals. Don't keep supporting war because you are afraid of terrorists. Don't keep supporting religion because you are afraid to be alone. Don't keep supporting what you suspect is simply the lesser of two evils because the evil gits are laughing behind the scenes and that is the way they maintain power over you. That is the way they pervert reality and run the world. And it will never work. As they say "It will all end in tears".

Friday, 15 July 2011

Well it appears that Boston in England is trying to claim its fame one way or another. Yes, there is a Boston in little old England. Boston, which is a small town in the county of Lincolnshire in England in the United Kingdom (or Great Britain as it is sometimes known), is in fact the eponym of the more famous Boston Massachusetts. Boston in the UK has been around for a good number of years and sports the tallest parish church tower in England. It's a whopping 272 feet (and 6 inches) high. It was because some of the Pilgrim Fathers were imprisoned in Boston prior to leaving for the New World that they strangely decided to call a settlement in what is now Massachusetts by the same name. But I digress.

Boston has been trying to be famous for years. Some long time ago it was the most significant port in the country but that was partly down to the Romans. Boston is surrounded by a lot of reclaimed land but that is down to the Dutch. Now, however, it can claim fame as the only place to blow up an illegal vodka factory in the UK! But, unfortunately, that is down to the Lithuanians (and it cost them five lives).

Bostonians, rather like many Americans, are quite parochial. I was a little amused by the Mayor's remarks when she reportedly said "I am sorry that it had to happen in our town." Perhaps she was thinking it would have been better in Skegness. According to Andy Warhol "... everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Well I guess it is a start for a whole town to get 15 minutes of fame. At a population of about 60,000 that's 15 milliseconds each. According to Lou Reed and John Cale "There's only one good thing about a small town. You know that you want to get out." Well five Lithuanians did.

Sorry to be so disrespectful but sometimes fame is like that. If I blew myself up in a vodka factory I would want someone to make jokes about it. It's a cruel world. Go buy the album, it's worth it: Songs for Drella by Lou Reed & John Cale. "Drella" being an amalgamation or coadjunct of Dracula and Cinderella which was a pet name of theirs for Andy Warhol. The album Songs for Drella is a kind of obituary, eulogy or tribute to Andy Warhol. (He's dead too.) All excessive profits will go to the Lithuanian vodka fund to rebuild the factory.